Breaking News: Nelson Mandela Found Alive After Being Pronounced Dead

A day after President Bush declared to the world that Nelson Mandela had been killed by Saddam Hussein, the Nelson Mandela Foundation announced that Mr. Mandela was found to be still alive:

The Nelson Mandela Foundation is assuring the public that the former South African president is still alive, after comments by U.S. President George Bush that potentially could be misunderstood.

In Johannesburg, the foundation’s chief executive officer, Achmat Dangor, said Friday that Mr. Mandela is alive and well, and enjoying some rest and relaxation at his home.

I am very thankful that the 89-year old Nobel Peace Prize winner is alive and well.

It is ironic that Mr. Bush should now be lamenting that there are no Mandelas in Iraq. There was a Mandela before Mr. Bush attacked Iraq. That Mandela said the following about Mr. Bush’s decision to attack Iraq:

It is a tragedy, what is happening, what Bush is doing. But Bush is now undermining the United Nations.

…

What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust.

…

Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly? All that it wants is Iraqi oil.

George W. Bush, a man with no foresight, did not listen to those who had that foresight. Now he is lamenting that he could use such men. How sad.

4 Responses to Breaking News: Nelson Mandela Found Alive After Being Pronounced Dead

The Bushes are not very popular in South Africa.
The South Africans still havenâ€™t forgiven the Americans for their support to the Apartheid government that oppressed the different ethnic groups with darker skin for decades.

In Mandelaâ€™s former home in Soweto (30 miles south of Johannesburg) which is now a museum, there hangs on the wall the letter Mandela sent to former President Bush (senior) and asked him to make an official apology on behalf of U.S. government, for standing by the Apartheid rulings. Bush Sr. refused to comply.
And now the Bush Jr. reference to Mandela for his pro-democracy leadership.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. supported South Africaâ€™s racist and oppressive Apartheid government in the UN.

CIA violated the United Nationsâ€™ arms embargo against South Africa by covertly providing arms to South Africa and supporting its military intervention in neighboring countries.

Throughout his presidency, Reagan supported the apartheid government in South Africa and even labeled Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress which was fighting for democracy in the country, a notorious terrorist organization.

From 1979 until 1984, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations was one of three representatives voting to support South Africaâ€™s apartheid regime.

How embarrasing for you. The President’s quote was a compliment to Mandela. A leader during tyranny who comes out the other side to lead his nation out of darkness. A moral man. None exist in Iraq. Saddam had them killed. That’s Bush’s point. He did not say Mandela has passed. It’s respectful to wish there was a Mandela in Iraq. Should we just not bring his name up until the 89 year old passes away? The original question that the President was referring to was someone asking: “Where is this region’s (middle east) Mandela?” Is that person to be derided as someone who mistakenly thought that a frail 89 year-old Mandela was making the rounds, dodging jihadists in Iraq? I really can’t believe that someone would have misunderstood the President’s evoking of Mandela’s name in his statement. I can believe this though:

As one of the legions of faceless, nameless, wise-ass, know-it-all bloggers to get yet another shot in at George Bush… you should be embarrased. You should be embarrased that you’re among a generation of kids who are getting their “news” snippets from YouTube, the daily show, and fellow bloggers.

The original question that the President was referring to was someone asking: â€œWhere is this regionâ€™s (middle east) Mandela?â€

If you had followed the link I provided to the White House transcript of the news conference, you would have seen that the President was not responding to the question you made up, but instead was responding to the following question (and I’m including his entire answer below):

Q I’ll ask you about Iraq. Efforts to curtail the deployment of troops is an ongoing debate right now. One of the things you spoke about in your address last week had to do with impatience with the Iraqi government. And you spoke about that, but not in much detail. How is that dynamic changing, your level of frustration with the lack of political progress? And how long can Americans reasonably expect you to wait before you take some kind of action that really forces the Iraqi government’s hand to reach the goals of reconciliation that you set for them?

THE PRESIDENT: In my speech, I made it clear that there has to be a change in security for there to be reconciliation. And I also said that progress will yield fewer troops. In other words, return on success, is what I said.

There are two types of reconciliation, David. One is that reconciliation, that very visible reconciliation that happens through the passage of law. In other words, it’s reconciliation that shows the Iraqi people that people from different backgrounds can get along and, at the same time, that government can function. Clearly there needs to be work there. In other words, there needs to be the passage of law. For example, we strongly believe that an oil revenue-sharing law will send a message to Sunni, Shia and Kurd alike that there is an effort at the national level to achieve reconciliation.

Having said that, however, there is a functioning government. And the reason I bring — I guess my point is this, that in spite of the fact they haven’t passed a law, there is the sharing of oil revenues on a relatively equitable basis. The other — and so we’ll continue to work with the government to insist and impress upon them the need for there to be the passage of law, whether it be provincial election laws or de-Baathification law or the oil law.

There is local reconciliation taking place. I had a fascinating conversation in the Roosevelt Room earlier this week with members of provincial reconstruction teams from around Iraq who talked about how people are sick and tired of murder and violence, and that they expect their local governments and their central government to be more responsive to their needs, and local governments are beginning to respond.

Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein’s brutal rule. I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where’s Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this. So there’s a psychological recovery that is taking place. And it’s hard work for them. And I understand it’s hard work for them. Having said that, I’m not going the give them a pass when it comes to the central government’s reconciliation efforts.

I also said in my speech, local politics will drive national politics. And I believe that. I believe that as more reconciliation takes place at the local level you’ll see a more responsive central government.

Axelrod.

So, to use your own words, you should be embarrassed to make up a question that was not asked by any reporter. Mr. Bush asked and answered his own question to try to make a muddled point. I happened to have watched the entire news conference. My suspicion however is that you probably did not and conjured up a question from thin air.

So I suggest you check your facts before trying to deliver the kind of reprimand that you attempted in the last paragraph of your comment.

Finally, as for complementing Mandela. Mr. Bush’s vice president once referred to Mandela as a “terrorist”. Now, when they have created a mess for themselves in Iraq, they are now praising this great man who they derided before. That, my friend, is the real embarrassment.